Advertisement

Conflicting Values or Common Ground? Some Concluding Thoughts

  • Suzie Thomas
Chapter

Abstract

In this closing chapter, I reflect on the issues and themes brought up around competing values in heritage management in the previous contributions. I look in particular at themes of communities and ownership, heritage protection (in times of conflict but also in peace time), the influence of digitization and the possible impact of major political changes on archaeological heritage management. Heritage itself as an academic subject can also be framed and thought about in different ways, with different debates and research questions emerging. Ultimately I suggest that the current volume is by no means a conclusive picture of archaeological heritage management and that the parameters and the questions are in constant flux.

Keywords

Archaeological heritage management Heritage values Digital heritage Critical heritage Heritage protection 

References

  1. Bokova, I. (2017, July 17). Hobby Lobby is making cultural preservation harder—and more dangerous. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/17/hobby-lobby-is-making-cultural-preservation-harder-and-more-dangerous/?utm_term=.bbf67ee4a5fd#comments. Accessed 23 Jun 2017.
  2. Brodie, N. (2015). Why is no one talking about Libya’s cultural destruction? Near Eastern Archaeology, 78(3), 212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buser, M. (2015). Rubbish theory: The heritage of toxic waste. Amsterdam: Reinwardt Academy.Google Scholar
  4. Burra Charter (2013) The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Burra, Australia. ICOMOSGoogle Scholar
  5. Crooke, E. (2001). Confronting a troubled history: Which past in Northern Ireland’s museums? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(2), 119–136.Google Scholar
  6. Deckers, P., Bleumers, L., Ruelens, S., Lemmens, B., Vanderperren, N., Marchal, C., Pierson, J., & Tys, D. (2016a). MEDEA: Crowd-sourcing the recording of metal-detected artefacts in Flanders (Belgium). Open Archaeology, 2(1), 264–277.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deckers, P., Lewis, M., & Thomas, S. (2016b). Between two places: Archaeology and metal-detecting in Europe. Open Archaeology, 2(1), 426–429.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobat, A. S. (2013). Between rescue and research: An evaluation after 30 years of liberal metal detecting in archaeological research and heritage practice in Denmark. European Journal of Archaeology, 16(4), 704–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobat, A. S., & Jensen, A. T. (2016). “Professional amateurs”. Metal detecting and metal detectorists in Denmark. Open Archaeology, 2(1), 70–84.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, K., Bigourdan, N., McCann, I., & Cooper, D. (2016). 3DMAPPR: A community-based underwater archaeological photogrammetry program in Perth, Western Australia. The Journal of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 40, 1–16.Google Scholar
  11. Halonen, H. (2014). Mooring project: Protecting the Underwater Cultural Heritage – Pilot project in Hanko and Kemiönsaari, Finland (Bachelor of Natural Resources thesis). Novia University of Applied Sciences, Tammisaari/Raseborg.Google Scholar
  12. Hardy, S. (2017). Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods. Cogent Social Sciences 3(1)Google Scholar
  13. Hamilakis, Y. (2003). Iraq, stewardship and ‘the record’: An ethical crisis for archaeology. Public Archaeology, 3(2), 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haukaas, C., & Hodgetts, L. M. (2016). The untapped potential of low-cost photogrammetry in community-based archaeology: A case study from Banks Island, Arctic Canada. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 3(1), 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, S. (2017). Wrestling with the social value of heritage: Problems, dilemmas and opportunities. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 4(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keitumetse, S. O., & Nthoi, O. (2009). Investigating the impact of World Heritage site tourism on the intangible heritage of a community: Tsodilo Hills World Heritage site, Botswana. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 4, 144–149.Google Scholar
  17. Koskinen-Koivisto, E., & Thomas, S. (2016). Lapland’s Dark Heritage: Responses to the legacy of World War II. In H. Silverman, E. Waterton, & S. Watson (Eds.), Heritage in action: Making the past in the heritage (pp. 121–133). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Lähdesmäki, T. (2014). The EU’S explicit and implicit heritage politics. European Societies, 16(3), 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lecroere, T. (2017). “There is none so blind as those who won‘t see”: Metal detecting and archaeology in France. Open Archaeology, 2(1), 182–193.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Light, D. (2017). Progress in dark tourism and thanatourism research: An uneasy relationship with heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 61, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maldonado, A. (2016). The serialized past: Archaeology news online. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(4), 556–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDavid, C., & Thomas, S. (2017). Editorial. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 4(3), 140–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyers Emery, K., & Reinhard, A. (2016). Trading shovels for controllers: A brief exploration of the portrayal of archaeology in video games. Public Archaeology, 14(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan, C., & Winters, J. (2015). Introduction: Critical blogging in archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 39.  https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.11.
  25. Munjeri, D. (2008). Introduction to international conventions and charters on immovable cultural heritage. In W. Ndoro, A. Mumma, & G. Abungu (Eds.), Cultural heritage and the law: Protecting immovable heritage in English-speaking countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 13–23). Rome: ICCROM.Google Scholar
  26. Newell, J., Robin, L., & Wehner, K. (Eds.). (2017). Curating the future: Museums, communities and climate change. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Olivier, A. (2017). Communities of interest: Challenging approaches. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 4(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pitblado, B. (2014). An argument for ethical, proactive, archaeologist-artifact collector collaboration. American Antiquity, 79(3), 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pitblado, B., & Shott, M. J. (2015). The present and future of archaeologist-collector collaboration. The SAA Archaeological Record, 15(5), 36–39.Google Scholar
  30. Pope, F. (2007). Dragon Sea: A true tale of treasure, archeology, and greed off the coast of Vietnam. Orlando, Austin, San Diego, Toronto, London: Harcourt Inc..Google Scholar
  31. Prott, L. V. (1983). International control of illicit movement on the cultural heritage: The 1970 UNESCO convention and some possible alternatives. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 10, 333–351.Google Scholar
  32. Robson, E., Treadwell, L., & Gosden, C. (Eds.). (2007). Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  33. Rodríguez Temiño, I. (2017). The Odyssey Case: Press, public opinion and future policy. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 46(1), 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodríguez Temiño, I., & Roma Valdés, A. (2015). Fighting against the archaeological looting and the illicit trade of antiquities in Spain. International Journal of Cultural Property, 22(1), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. The Archaeology Forum. (2016). What does the EU mean to the UK Archaeology sector? A briefing by The Archaeology Forum, May 2016. http://new.archaeologyuk.org/Content/downloads/4398_What-does-the-EU-mean-to-the-Archaeology-sector.pdf. Accessed 19 Jul 2017.
  36. Thomas, S., Seitsonen, O., & Herva, V.-P. (2016). Nazi memorabilia, dark heritage and treasure hunting as ‘alternative’ tourism: Understanding the fascination with the material remains of World War II in Northern Finland. Journal of Field Archaeology, 41(3), 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venice Charter (1964) International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites.Venice, Italy. ICOMOS.Google Scholar
  38. Wolferstan, S. (2016). Ethnography of a ‘humble expert’: Experiencing Faro. In J. Schofield (Ed.), Who needs experts? Counter-mapping cultural heritage (pp. 43–53). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Zhu, Y. (2017). Uses of the past: Negotiating heritage in Xi’an. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(2), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzie Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations